What "spirit of Vatican II" Catholics fear most about the reform of the reform in continuity is authentic authority and the liturgy that supports it. They much more prefer their bogus form of authority and the liturgy that supports that. We could say as St. John's Letters that we read during the Christmas/Epiphany weekday readings for Mass that in them lies the heart of the anti-Christ. It is also anti-Church, anti-pope. It is a new form of gnosticism and as ugly as the original condemned heresy of the Church. You can see it at work in the Episcopal Church and it is certainly at work in many post-Catholics in the Church today:
SAME SEX MARRIAGE CEREMONIES WILL TAKE PLACE AT WASHINGTON, DC'S NATIONAL CATHEDRAL, (PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF AMERICA).
Longtime same-sex marriage advocate the Very Rev. Gary Hall took over as the Washington Cathedral's dean in October (Protestant Episcopal Church of America).
He said, "I read the Bible as seriously as fundamentalists do," Hall told the AP. "And my reading of the Bible leads me to want to do this because I think it's being faithful to the kind of community that Jesus would have us be."
My final comments: At least in the Catholic Church, infallibility is only accorded to one man alone, and that is the pope and even then he must act in continuity with the authentic faith of the Church and her tradition of Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law.
Protestants on the other hand, have had a creeping infallibility accorded to almost every believer, thus if you believe it and it makes you feel good, it must be true. And thus you can have an Episcopal dean say within his Protestant tradition of creeping infallibility of every person, "And my reading of the Bible leads me to want to do this because I think it's being faithful to the kind of community that Jesus would have us be."
Case closed, infallibility triumphs. Ecumenism is dealt a deadly blow. God must not want ecumenism.
23 comments:
Maybe, just maybe, we were better off calling things spades more often, and all of the anathema sits during the various centuries of the Church, maybe, maybe, we knew what were doing back then ;)
You're right. God DOESN'T want ecumenism if it means selling out.
Where exactly in Sacred Scripture does God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost condone same-sex anything, let alone marriage?
I have been reading Sacred Scripture for 36 years (I first remember reading the Bible at age 4) and I have never found that passage.
Where am I missing this all important passage?
This is what happens when you have no Authority in the church! This is what happens when democracy enters into the church, voting on what is and what is not doctrine allows humanities sinful frailties to enter the church and thus corrupts not only the people but also the faith itself. Ecumenism and evangelization go hand in hand, and in this sense it cannot be dead. Ecumenism must be based solely upon the apostolic faith; any compromise from that foundation is corrupting the faith.
As difficult as it may be the Catholic Church must draw a line in the sand, if you reject the faith as received by the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, both individuals and groups should be Anathema. Being overly pastoral and allowing all the nonsense to come into the Church has done much more damage than any Anathema or excommunication has ever done. This is one area where we could learn a great deal from our Orthodox brothers, they don’t put up with any shenanigans at all.
God certainly does want ecumenism, but ecumenism does not mean that Christian truth and Satanic error will embrace, but, rather, that men of good will must see the light of Christ, repent, and convert to the One, True Church.
On another note, I wish again, humbly, to propose that dear Father consider the possibility of installing Disqus as his commenting service. I seem to have increasing difficulty making out the "prove you're not a robot" letters and numbers.
Father,
You say in your post: “Protestants on the other hand, have had a creeping infallibility accorded to almost every believer, thus if you believe it and it makes you feel good, it must be true.” And with regard to what “makes you feel good” you focus, as so often seems to be the case, on what others have termed “pelvic issues,” especially, but not only, as concerns homosexuality and the issue of same sex marriages. Moreover, the post seems to suggest that opposition to Reform of the Reform is connected to resistance to the teaching of the Church regarding these “pelvic issues.”
Without wishing to minimize the importance of “pelvic issues,” and at the now somewhat tiresomely predictable risk of being labeled yet again as a liberal or socialist or un-American or some such, I wonder if the analysis might be broadened out somewhat (a) to challenge attitudes about other, non-“pelvic” issues, and (b) to connect that challenge, and possible resistance to it, also to Reform of the Reform.
The following extracts from one of Pope Benedict’s homilies in 2008 (given on September 13 at an outdoor papal Mass in Paris), which I happened to come across yesterday, would seem to capture the heart of the problem as well as the solution (and if I am not mistaken, the Holy Father has repeated the same themes since then):
“In the First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, we discover, in this Pauline year inaugurated on 28 June last, how much the counsels given by the Apostle remain important today. ‘Shun the worship of idols’ (1 Cor 10:14), he writes to a community deeply marked by paganism and divided between adherence to the newness of the Gospel and the observance of former practices inherited from its ancestors . . . .
“This appeal to shun idols, dear brothers and sisters, is also pertinent today. Has not our modern world created its own idols? Has it not imitated, perhaps inadvertently, the pagans of antiquity, by diverting man from his true end, from the joy of living eternally with God? This is a question that all people, if they are honest with themselves, cannot help but ask. What is important in my life? What is my first priority? The word “idol” comes from the Greek and means “image”, “figure”, “representation”, but also “ghost”, “phantom”, “vain appearance”. An idol is a delusion, for it turns its worshipper away from reality and places him in the kingdom of mere appearances. Now, is this not a temptation in our own day – the only one we can act upon effectively? The temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings; the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone, man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth! Saint Paul explains to the Colossians that insatiable greed is a form of idolatry (cf. 3:5), and he reminds his disciple Timothy that love of money is the root of all evil. By yielding to it, he explains, “some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs” (1 Tim 6:10). Have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even for knowledge, diverted man from his true Destiny, from the truth about himself? . . . .
“The one God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – created our reason and gives us faith, proposing to our freedom that it be received as a precious gift. It is the worship of idols which diverts man from this perspective. Let us therefore ask God, who sees us and hears us, to help us purify ourselves from all idols, in order to arrive at the truth of our being, in order to arrive at the truth of his infinite being!
(continued)
“How do we reach God? How do we manage to discover or rediscover him whom man seeks at the deepest core of himself, even though he so often forgets him? Saint Paul asks us to make use not only of our reason, but above all our faith in order to discover him. Now, what does faith say to us? The bread that we break is a communion with the Body of Christ. The cup of blessing which we bless is a communion with the Blood of Christ. This extraordinary revelation comes to us from Christ and has been transmitted to us by the Apostles and by the whole Church for almost two thousand years: Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist on the evening of Holy Thursday. He wanted his sacrifice to be presented anew, in an unbloody manner, every time a priest repeats the words of consecration over the bread and wine. Millions of times over the last twenty centuries, in the humblest chapels and in the most magnificent basilicas and cathedrals, the risen Lord has given himself to his people, thus becoming, in the famous expression of Saint Augustine, “more intimate to us than we are to ourselves” (cf. Confessions, III, 6, 11). . . .
“The Mass is the sacrifice of thanksgiving par excellence, the one which allows us to unite our own thanksgiving to that of the Saviour, the Eternal Son of the Father. It also makes its own appeal to us to shun idols, for, as Saint Paul insists, “you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1 Cor 10:21). The Mass invites us to discern what, in ourselves, is obedient to the Spirit of God and what, in ourselves, is attuned to the spirit of evil.
“To raise the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord, is that not the very best way of ‘shunning idols’, as Saint Paul asks us to do? Every time the Mass is celebrated, every time Christ makes himself sacramentally present in his Church, the work of our salvation is accomplished. Hence to celebrate the Eucharist means to recognize that God alone has the power to grant us the fullness of joy and teach us true values, eternal values that will never pass away. God is present on the altar, but he is also present on the altar of our heart when, as we receive communion, we receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist. He alone teaches us to shun idols, the illusions of our minds. . . . .”
That we are tempted to worship idols is hardly a new thought, of course, although the idol(s) may be different for each of us. However, it seems more than coincidence that I should have read about the Pope’s homily shortly after reading your post, and I thought it might help to share it in order perhaps to connect some more dots. There is much more in the homily, of course, and for those who would like to read the entire homily here is the link:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20080913_parigi-esplanade_en.html
Anon 2, What the Hell is your point? Ummm...idolatry is bad, whatever it is, and the Pope said some nice things in a homily one time.
Do you or do you not believe the Church should change her position on homosexuality and gay marriage?
Your dismissive referral to these concerns as "pelvic issues" is a cynical attempt to reduce fundamental theological and moral issues to parody and jest. I suppose, then, that the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are "pelvic issues" as well. You sound just like your buddy Millie...remember him?
How about a simple yes or no answer instead of some convoluted rhetorical St. Vitus dance...
Gene,
I, too, was left scratching my head a little. I'm always pleased to read Pope Benedict, but I think we can all agree that he is opposed both to liturgical deformities and to sexual perversions.
Gene would be a terrible lawyer, but an excellent judge. LOL!
Gene (and others),
Sorry to cause perplexity.
I have set out my views on same sex marriage and homosexuality in the thread on the U.K Paper on Same Sex Marriage from January 2. As I explained there, despite the tension I experience over this issue because I have friends, colleagues, and relatives who are homosexual, I accept the teaching of the Church. Moreover, I am not qualified to urge the Church to change it.
Sometimes I just can’t understand_your_reactions, Gene. Unless I am seriously mistaken, _you_ were the one who commonly referred to these issues as “pelvic issues.” Indeed, I had the impression it was you who originated that usage on this Blog. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if I am not, then it is you, not I, who is guilty of parody and jest.
And yes, I must not have made my point sufficiently clear, although I had thought that the Holy Father would be clear enough.
But I_did_ make very clear before quoting these extracts that I had no wish to minimize the importance of the “sexuality” issues (I will avoid the apparently now objectionable “pelvic” usage). That said, I wanted to broaden out the way we are challenged as Catholics beyond them to other issues. And in that regard, I wonder if your own apparent dismissal or minimizing of Pope Benedict’s words as mystifying (“idolatry is bad, whatever it is”) or superficial (“the Pope said some nice things in a homily one time”) may not betray some defensiveness on your part (although I am unsure why that would be), or even an attempt at parody and jest.
Upon re-reading the comments I now see that Father Shelton has provided a very good way of getting across my point even more clearly, Thus, Father Shelton says of the Pope’s homily “I think we can all agree that he is opposed both to liturgical deformities and to sexual perversions.” Indeed we can. My point, of course, is that he is opposed to a lot of other things too (represented by the idolatry of which he speaks) and I suspect he would want us to talk about and be concerned about these other things. That, I assume, is why he gave the homily.
If I understand the Holy Father correctly, he views our participation in the Mass (and especially I would think our participation in the EF Mass) as permitting God’s grace to transform our minds and hearts in relation to a whole range of issues because, as the Holy Father says, “God is present on the altar, but he is also present on the altar of our heart when, as we receive communion, we receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist. He alone teaches us to shun idols, the illusions of our minds. . . . .”
Now, what on earth is wrong with any of that? And what on earth has it got to do with my “buddy” Millie?
Perhaps the perplexity, or objection, has to do with raising these other issues in a thread that focuses on “sexuality” issues. I look forward, then, to future threads that address how the liturgy can help us resist“[t]he temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings [and] the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist” and the lure of “money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even for knowledge [that have] diverted man from his true Destiny, from the truth about himself.”
Perhaps there have been such threads in the past. I have tried to verify this but it seems that the index of Father's previous posts that used to be displayed at the side bar of the Blog is no longer accessible.
Gene,
I have now found the archives again and indeed have learned how to search in them. So, to help answer further your accusation that “[my] dismissive referral to these concerns as ‘pelvic issues’ is a cynical attempt to reduce fundamental theological and moral issues to parody and jest” and to support my claim that I was using terminology that appears to be well accepted on this Blog, I can now refer you to Father’s posts of Friday, June 8, 2012 (two relevant posts), Wednesday, June 13, 2012, Wednesday, June 20, 2012, and Tuesday, June 26, 2012, all of which make frequent use of the term “pelvic issues” (sometimes even in the headline for the post).Here is a link so you can readily verify this yourself:
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/search?q=pelvic+issues
So, Gene, if you have a problem with my usage, may I respectfully suggest that you take it up either with yourself (if you were the one originating this usage on this Blog) or with Father MacDonald, and kindly withdraw your baseless accusation.
Thanks.
I have never used the phrase "pelvic issues" on this blog other than to repeat someone else's use of it in a response. I am sure that Fr. has used it in the same way. I consider the phrase to be dismissive and cynical, an effort to reduce fundamental moral and theological issues to parody and jest. I suppose the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are merely "pelvic issues," as well.
The Pope's statement about "idolizing a past that no longer exists and...to idolize a future that does not yet exist" is an unfortunate one. It is vague and somewhat careless, bound to be seized upon by progressives as a tool for de-constructing the Liturgy and Eucharistic theology.
Indeed, how is it possible to "idolize" revealed Truth which has commanded us to worship this trinitarian God who reveals himself to us? Just what things in this "past that no longer exists are we to give up as idolatry...the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Ascension? I am reminded of the Protestant theologian of great renown, Rudolph Bultmann, whose books are still used in seminaries, prot and Catholic. he sasid, "It is no longer possible, in a world of jet airplanes, televisions, and electric toasters to believe in the First Century world of spirits and miracles." He then proceeds to "de-mythologize" Scripture in terms of our existential self-understanding and a lot of BS "Word-Event" (see Ebeling)theology that means absolutely nothing. We must learn to live authentically in personal encounter with others in mutual self-understanding. I swear it sounds like a bunch of college students in some la dee da discussion over a bong while trying to get laid.
This is the kind of crap to which vague statements like that unfortunate one of the Pope's lead.
And just what might be the "future that does not yet exist" that we idolize...Christ's return to judge the living and the dead?"
You never gave me the simple yes or no answer for which I asked but, being a lawyer, I suppose that is beyond your job description...
(more on pelvic issues...cont'd)
Pelvic issues...yes! The most fundamental drive of mankind...to reproduce, to dominate, to acquire territory. God in His wisdom gave us strict parameters within which to exercise these elemental drives, all of which are included in the sex drive.
The structures of family and tribe, community, civilization, and the Church are all derived from this fundamental drive and the ability, as Freud so aptly delineated, of Western Judaeo-Christian civilization to postpone gratification and channel the libido into creative and productive activities. These drives gone amuck are what Original Sin is all about...Original Sin being transmitted sexually from Adam and Eve to their descendants. There are countless stories in Scripture about the consequences of defying God's limits upon this powerful drive...indeed, the entire OT might be understood in terms of the "pelvic issues" of some of our more notable progenitors such as David, Solomon, Samson, and others.
Family structure...marriage, the analogue to the Trinity and the Church, is the fundamental element of Christian civilization. Why should it not be fiercely guarded and those who seek to undermine it or destroy it just as fiercely condemned?
So, don't give me this glib crap about "pelvic issues." It marks you as dilettante and causes me to doubt the sincerety with which you consider these fundamental truths.
Gene:
If you could access the link I included in my previous comment you would be able to see when and how and by whom the term “pelvic issues” has been used in previous posts on the Blog. Unfortunately, when I copy the link and paste it into the Google search box it brings up quite different posts from the ones that come up when I click on the active link directly. I cannot explain this. If possible, I would include an active link (I see that others do it) but I don’t know how to do this in the Comment box on the Blog. In the meantime you can readily verify usage of this term by going to the dates I gave you in the archives. To give you an idea, however, here is an extract from Father McDonald’s post of Wednesday June 20, 2012 on “The What If and the What Is: Church Life Today and Being a True Papist”:
“The reformation that post-Catholic progressives want in the Church blends in very well with the secular agenda of liberal politics, especially as it concerns the "pelvic issues." These are artificial birth control, abortion, no matter what stage of pregnancy, sterilization and the like. It also includes medical ethic issues such as stem cell research, genetic manipulation and the like. It includes same sex marriage and transgendered acceptance as normal. It includes just about everything that the Catholic Church opposes. It is all political and who controls what.”
So, I do think I can be forgiven for thinking that this term was an accepted usage on this Blog, likely originated by Father McDonald it seems. And others have adopted it by reference, just as I did. In fact, in commenting on Father’s post of Friday, June 8, 2012 on “Pelvic Issues and Dissent from Dissent etc” both you and Anon 5 did so.
Or are you suggesting that Father McDonald’s use of the term has been “dismissive and cynical, an effort to reduce fundamental moral and theological issues to parody and jest.” Unless I am missing something, I am using the term exactly as he has done, but you did not object then. And no-one has suggested that the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are “pelvic issues,” least of all me. That is purely a figment of your own imagination.
(continued)
Regarding the Pope’s reference to idolizing the past and the future, if you read the full passage again you will see that the Holy Father was referring to “[t]he temptation to idolize a past that no longer exists, forgetting its shortcomings [and] the temptation to idolize a future which does not yet exist, in the belief that, by his efforts alone, man can bring about the kingdom of eternal joy on earth!” It seems tolerably clear to me that the Holy Father is referring to the temptation to idolize human temporal history, not sacred history, and human utopian aspirations, so your reservations would appear to be based on a misreading of what the Pope actually said.
Gene, you sarcastically suggested that, being a member of the legal profession, I did not give you the simple “yes or no” answer for which you asked. I most certainly did. I am sorry it was in a form you were unable to recognize. I will repeat it again. I said: “I have set out my views on same sex marriage and homosexuality in the thread on the U.K Paper on Same Sex Marriage from January 2. As I explained there, despite the tension I experience over this issue because I have friends, colleagues, and relatives who are homosexual, I accept the teaching of the Church. Moreover, I am not qualified to urge the Church to change it.” That answer seems pretty clear to me. Unlike my “buddy” Millie, who regrettably remained obstinate in his refusal to accede to your demands for “yes and no” answers, I have no problem in doing so. So, please stop trying to “do a Millie” on me. It won’t work.
Now, I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate and give us a clear “yes or no” answer, in whatever form you prefer, regarding your own views on the other issues of idolatry the Pope mentions, i.e., “insatiable greed,” “love of money,” and “the thirst for possessions, for power and even for knowledge,” instead of cleverly trying to subsume them all under some expanded notion of “pelvic issues” in a neo-Freudian move that can only diverts us from confronting them directly as the Holy Father intended.
Anon 2,
"Insatiable greed"...yes, it is bad.
"Love of money"...yes, also bad.
"Thirst for Possesions"...yes, that is bad, too.
All are connected to the sexual/aggressive drives and, therefore, to those fundamental issues we are asked to confront.
Fr. placed "pelvic issues" in quotes when he used it. This indicates to me that he understood the phrase to be a type of slang.
I have not misunderstood the Pope at all. Those Progressives who take the statement and run with it are just those who question the doctrines I mentioned. Do not lose focus, this is all about unbelief and its desire to destroy the Liturgy and, thereby, the Church.
Accepting the teachings of the Church (how magnanimous of you)does not mean you would not like to see them changed. Claiming a lack of qualification to urge the Church to change them could be construed to mean that, if you were qualified, then you would.
I have acquaintances who are homosexual and one cousin who is light in his loafers but I feel no tension regarding my view that homosexuality is an abomination or the Church's teachings regarding it. I just kind of shrug my shoulders and relegate them to God's judgement and mercy.
Gene:
We are probably the only ones following this thread now, so I can be blunt. You and I are going to have a much more constructive relationship on this Blog if we both get beyond childish sniping. I have been guilty of this too. So, to clear the air for some serious and constructive discussion, let me get those issues out of the way first.
I used the term “pelvic issues” in quotes, too, exactly as Father had done.
It is not “magnanimous” of me to accept the teachings of the Church. It is Catholic of me. And it is honest of me to admit to a tension. Sometimes it is not easy being Catholic because many of the moral teachings of the Church are difficult. They demand much from us personally and from others in our lives. We fail to live up to them daily, and we commit sin daily. At least I do. And sometimes the teachings themselves are difficult to accept because they do demand so much and we feel a tension because of that. Can you honestly say there is no teaching of the Church that you find difficult to accept? And yet, accept them we do because that is who we are as Catholics. That is central to an integral Catholic identity and to not being a cafeteria Catholic.
You asked “Do you or do you not believe the Church should change her position on homosexuality and gay marriage?” This is a bit like asking “Have you stopped beating your wife” and I will not answer it in the way you put it. Whether I answer yes or no, either way I am asserting that the Church “should” do something. And I am not going to tell the Church, i.e., the magisterium, what they “should” or “should not” teach. I am going to try to accept their teaching as the correct moral teaching, however hard it is to do so, and I am going to try to live up to it as best I can, however hard that is, and knowing that I will fail daily.
So, now that we have got beyond those distractions, let’s talk about the more serious and interesting matters. First, I agree that progressives could misconstrue the first part of the Pope’s statement if they wanted to. They can’t do that with the second part. Of course, I would argue that the second part (and the identity of the author of the statement) provides a context for interpreting the first part as well but, if I were a progressive, and willing to take language out of its context to serve an argument (a very common form of dishonesty nowadays it seems), then I can see how it could be misconstrued.
Second, regarding your positive thesis, I want to be sure I understand your position first. You seem to be suggesting that: (1) the sinful and idolatrous inclinations of the human condition (including the hubristic celebration of the merely human, insatiable greed, love of money, thirst for possessions, thirst for power, and thirst for knowledge of which the Pope speaks) are_all_rooted in our inclination towards sexual disorder; (2) resisting that disorder is a necessary prerequisite to addressing all these other sinful inclinations; and perhaps also (3) such resistance is even sufficient for addressing these other sinful inclinations. I am not sure how Biblical that thesis is but it is certainly a very interesting and provocative one that is apparently much influenced by Freudian thought (although I am no expert on Freud myself). Do some or all of those points represent your position? Once that is clarified, perhaps we can have an illuminating and constructive discussion about it.
Anon2, I am saying that the love of money, thirst for possessions, and insatiable greed are all rooted in the reproductive drive...the territorial imperative (lebensraum) for security for family and tribe, possessions as a sign of power and security for the family group, and the desire for more of all of the above for the same reasons are, indeed, the anthropological/social manifestations of original sin. They are not the only manifestations of it, but they are certainly the fundamental ones.
Theologically, disobedience is the primary manifestation and cause of original sin.
The Biblical account of the Fall is couched in sexual terms of shame and guilt ("how did you know that you were naked?")and, as we know, this guilt and shame were transmitted sexually to the progenitors of that first couple. Freud, a slave to his Judaeo-Western background in spite of himself, delineates for us the "clockwork" of original sin regarding human relationships and social behavior.
No, I would not say that the mere control of these drives and sexual disorder is sufficient for addressing other sinful inclinations. As I said, disobedience is the distributive factor over all of the above. However, God's wisdom and the wisdom of the ages teaches that much of our woe derives from these primal drives and the urge to act them out in anti-social, destructive ways.
If I did not respect your intelligence and learning I would not snipe. You can take it. But, having spent a lot of my life in academia, I still can't understand just how it compromises people's ability to make simple yes or no decisions and make moral and value judgements based upon simple common sense without endless deliberation and hand wringing. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. LOL!
ps In the above post, I should hav written "descendants of that first couple" instead of "progenitors. Sorry.
Gene,
It has been a very hectic day and I have only just been able to check the Blog. Thanks for your interesting comment. I need to ponder it (wihout too much hand wringing I trust=)) and will try to respond later this evening or tomorrow.
Sorry, Gene. It has been a week. I don’t know if you are still “there” (I read somewhere recently that some followers of the Blog have a way to be alerted to responses to their posts), but if you are I have a request. I think I need to have a better understanding of how Freudian theory relates to our Faith before I can respond intelligently. Can you suggest a source that addresses such matters? Thanks.
Post a Comment